Wednesday, February 26, 2014

You'll like 'Ike's Law'

As if we’re not closely enough identified with political corruption, the Chicago area is poised to make forehead-smacking headlines around the nation the morning after the March 18 primary election.

Democratic state Rep. Derrick Smith, of Chicago, who is facing trial on federal charges that he accepted a bribe to help a day-care operator get a state grant, has the backing of party leaders in his race against four challengers, and could easily win renomination.

At the same time, former West Side Ald. Isaac “Ike” Carothers (right), sentenced to 28 months in prison in 2010 after pleading guilty to bribery and tax fraud, is by far the best known of five Democrats vying for the 1st District County Board seat being vacated by Earlean Collins.

Both districts are so heavily Democratic that the primary serves as the de facto election. If Smith wins and is then found guilty, the problem will take care of itself, at least in the short term. He’ll automatically lose his seat.

But if Carothers wins, he’ll become a lingering civic embarrassment, still more proof that Chicago ain’t ready for reform.

So concerned about this prospect are Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Cook County Board President Toni Preckwinkle that they held an unprecedented joint news conference last week to announce their support for candidate Blake Sercye.

Sercye, 27, is a University of Chicago Law School graduate who served as political director for Emanuel’s 2011 mayoral campaign. He said he was raised by a single mother in the Austin neighborhood.

“This is not the time to turn the clock back,” Emanuel told reporters.

True. But it’s also not the time to hope that voters in such a down-ballot contest will pay attention to the admonitions of elected officials, editorial writers and even columnists.

What is it time for? “Ike’s Law.”

Ike’s Law, named for Carothers, is what I call the much-needed reforms in the state statutes governing eligibility for public office.

Briefly, Illinois law says convicted felons can’t run for municipal offices such as mayor and alderman. But they can run for state offices, including elected county positions that are established by the constitution, once they have completed their sentences.

So Carothers, who admitted to exchanging his support for a zoning variance for $40,000 in improvements to his home, can’t serve on the Chicago City Council again, but he remains eligible to serve on the Cook County Board or in the General Assembly. (He’s also eligible to run for Congress or the presidency, as federal law doesn’t restrict felons from running for federal offices.)

The distinction at the state level is apparently rooted in the idea that, in races for bigger offices, voters will be aware of candidates’ criminal histories and can decide for themselves whether felony convictions ought to be disqualifying.

But in races for smaller offices, voters will be less well-informed. Even if that were true — and I believe it vastly overestimates the awareness of the electorate — convictions for political corruption ought to be different.

Convictions for political corruption should permanently disqualify a person from holding “any office of trust, profit or honor in the state,” to borrow language from Wisconsin, which is among 17 states that take a harder line than Illinois and draw a justifiable distinction between violations of the public trust and other offenses.

I haven’t heard a peep of support from state lawmakers since I first floated this idea last fall when Carothers was making noises about running.

“I don’t think there’d be much of an appetite for that kind of law in Springfield,” said Steve Brown, spokesman for House Speaker and Democratic Party Chairman Michael Madigan, citing the ever-vexing issue of how best to reintegrate ex-offenders to society.

Chicago and Illinois is a culture and cornucopia of corruption. Nothing changes except the names. So called reformers just throw the bums out to put their own bums in. The reason is simple. The average voter is a low information dullard.

This is what the citizens of Chicago and Illinois have decided they want. So be it. Illinois has allowed itself to become a laughingstock in the eyes of much of the rest of the country; as former residents of Illinois my wife and I roll our eyes and laugh at the antics of the political elites in Chicagoland and Springfield on a routine basis.

I would have said "Madigan, who couldn't wait to expel Smith just before the last election, knowing expulsion was a one-time deal that couldn't overturn an election, now is backing him for re-election." Madigan didn't have any problem allowing Smith to be anointed err appointed to the State Legislature despite his being fired from a city job for "allegedly" using city equipment and workers to do private landscaping work, so why would a minor deal like taking a bribe bother him?

Saw the Bruce Rommney TV commercial again this morning, and I have 2 questions:

1) What "special interests" is he beholden to? He's made his money somehow....who is going to "apply the screws" to him?

2) He says he is going to deliver term limits. Is he going to snap his fingers? Blink his eyes? George W Brady has been in Illinois government longer than Pat Quinn, does he get kicked out of office too?

--"Not only should it be impossible for someone convicted of a felony to hold public office, anyone convicted of a felony while in office should face a sentence triple that of anyone else!"

In an ideal world--that is, nothing that will or even CAN resemble ours--I would favor execution for the worst of such offenders/offenses. And I have generally become an anti-death penalty person over the last decade or so.

@MOPerina: The triple sentence would really force them to realize that corruption is a serious thing.
I would extend it to all civil service jobs too.
And the triple sentence should always be multiplied against the maximum.

@ Anon 8:08: Term limits assume that being in office makes someone unfit to serve the public. Eric's proposal assumes that being convicted of serious public corruption, even once, makes someone unfit to serve the public. There is a distinction there, logically and consistently, if you care to look for it.

Such a typical lefty statement--save us from ourselves.
Funny how the left champions the voting process until it does something they don't like. Then they call the lawyers and the judges to change it, because they just know what's better for us than we do.
Take it from an old nurse--you can't save people from themselves. Citizens GAVE the city and the state absolute power over them by voting for the same people time after time after time because they were the right party and the right skin color. Or they did not vote at all. Their choice and their consequences to face.

@John Giannini:
No, it was a bunch of elitists that wrote the new state constitution in the late 1960s that thought we the people were too stupid to have citizen initiatives & made that impossible except for a few small reasons.
The #1 elitist was the convention president Sam Witwer, from the North Shore!

About "Change of Subject."

"Change of Subject" by Chicago Tribune op-ed columnist Eric Zorn contains observations, reports, tips, referrals and tirades, though not necessarily in that order. Links will tend to expire, so seize the day. For an archive of Zorn's latest Tribune columns click here. An explanation of the title of this blog is here. If you have other questions, suggestions or comments, send e-mail to ericzorn at gmail.com.
More about Eric Zorn

Contributing editor Jessica Reynolds is a 2012 graduate of Loyola University Chicago and is the coordinator of the Tribune's editorial board. She can be reached at jreynolds at tribune.com.